Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Senior Contributor

Krugman's rush to judgement.

Actually it was not a rush to judgement, it was nothing but an out and out lie spewed from his filthy mouth because every theory he has in economics have been proven false. This is what the left have scummed to. Talk about the extremist wingnuts running the party.




Within hours after Jared Loughner's killing spree, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman went straight for the gutter, proclaiming, with no evidence whatsoever, that Loughner's act was in all likelihood "political," and going on to blame Republicans for the murders. I denounced Krugman's vile blog post here.

We now know that Loughner's murders were not political. He was deranged and had no coherent political philosophy. To the extent that he had any political beliefs at all, his friends describe him as left wing. He thought the Bush administration was behind the September 11 attacks. He has been more or less obsessed with Congresswoman Giffords since 2007, when he showed up at one of her events and asked something like, "What becomes of government when words have no meaning?" He was outraged that Giffords was unable to answer his question and, apparently, despised her from that point on. This, of course, was before the Tea Party movement existed and when Sarah Palin was the little-known governor of Alaska.

So Krugman's vicious smear was completely unfounded. Nevertheless, true to form, he has not backed off, let alone apologized. Instead, in his latest column he doubled down, claiming even more explicitly that Republicans somehow caused Loughner's murder spree, whether Loughner suspected it or not. As usual, Krugman's column is poorly reasoned and lacking in any perceptible factual support. It's just the wishful thinking of a rabid and hateful partisan. Others can take it apart line by line.

I want to focus on just one point. The most striking thing about Krugman's rant is that he adduces one--one!--purported fact in support of the central thesis of his column:

The point is that there's room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn't any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary. [Ed.: By resurrecting the fairness doctrine, for example? Apparently that's not what he has in mind.]

And it's the saturation of our political discourse -- and especially our airwaves -- with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence. [Ed.: Evidence for that statement? Don't be silly--this is a Krugman column.]

Where's that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let's not make a false pretense of balance: it's coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It's hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be "armed and dangerous" without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.

That's it, folks. Bachmann is the only Republican politician whom Krugman accuses of using "eliminationist rhetoric." He apparently believes, and wants readers of the Times to believe, that Bachmann told Minnesota Republicans to arm themselves so they can go out and shoot Democrats. Isn't that what is meant by "eliminationist rhetoric"?



For the record, here is what Michele said: "I'm going to have materials for people when they leave. I want people armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax, because we need to fight back." Yes, that's right: she wanted Minnesotans to be armed with materials--facts and arguments--not guns. If this is the best example of "eliminationist rhetoric" that the far left can come up with, you can see how absurdly weak the claims of Krugman and his fellow haters are.

3 Replies
greenhouse man
Senior Contributor

Re: Krugman's rush to judgement.

Well said. But they won't let the truth get in their way. Have you ever noticed that most of these "killers" are agnostic or atheist. Now why is that? Most of them are also Marxists. Why is that? Oklahoma city was a prime example. Sure he was raised a catholic, but once evil entered him.... He no longer believed. He also spoke of Marxism. Why is that?

Senior Contributor

Re: Krugman's rush to judgement.

Why don't you post your Nobel prize certificate, 3020. You think you have all the answers, where's your prize showing us how intelliegent you are?!

Red Steele
Senior Contributor

Re: Krugman's rush to judgment.

a couple of comments


the killer's asking about "what becomes of  government when words have no meanings?"  seems to be a phrase that would be based on the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein , a mathematician and logician, turned the world of Philosophy on its ear in the early 20th century by showing that most philosophy is really a circular word game, ultimately based on definitions and language constructs. If you are into such things, a good read is "Wittgenstein's Poker". It is part biography, and centers around the confrontation of Ludwig Wittgenstein with Karl Popper, where Ludwig brandished a Poker and threaten to strike Popper with the hot end out of frustration with the slowness of Popper's mind. Kind of like what you feel like everytime the not so great one posts one of his inane replies or comments.


Krugman is an egghead that should be sentenced to spend a decade or two in some soviet style internment camp, with some time off to work on a collective farm, and starved and whipped periodically. I bet then the arsehat would appreciate freedom, plentiful food, and the America way a whole lot better and would check his commie attitudes at the door when released. Might be a good plan for all the lefties. Maybe if they would spend some time on a collective farm , and experience some hunger pangs, they might not be so quick to want to put the USA's medical system down a similar styled road. The road to ruin, after first taking a detour on the road to serfdom.